Karnataka High Court
Sri. Dilip @ Dilipkumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 May, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17461
CRL.A No. 809 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.809 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI DILIP @ DILIPKUMAR
S/O LATE CHANNKESHAVA,
AGED 23 YEARS,
R/A KUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 561203.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA H V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed BY DODDABELAVANGALA POLICE STATION,
by DEVIKA M DODDABALLAPUR CIRCLE,
Location: HIGH REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. SRI ARUN G
S/O GANGADHAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KACHERIPALYA,
29TH WARD, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BANGALORE
RURAL DIST.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP;
R2 - SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17461
CRL.A No. 809 of 2024
THIS CRL.A. is FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2024
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.543/2024 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT AT BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned HCGP appearing for the
respondent/State.
2. The factual matrix case of the prosecution is
that on 12.11.2023 at about 4.30 p.m., when the
complainant along with the deceased Surya and his friends
went to A Dark Family Restaurant situated near
Rameshwara village gate for photo-shoot, the appellant
herein/petitioner along with other accused persons came
inside the said restaurant at lawn and they asked Surya to
click the photo from his camera. Accordingly he has taken
the photo and accused person asked Surya to forward the
said photo to his mobile. When the said Surya expressed
his inability to forward the photos from the camera to the
NC: 2024:KHC:17461
mobile, the appellant snatched the camera from the victim
and hence, scuffle was taken place between them. The
victim Surya belongs to the downtrodden caste hence,
offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act is
invoked. When the appellant herein inflicted the injury
with the knife to the victim, he succumbed to the injuries,
thus invoked Section 302 of IPC. The police investigated
the matter and filed the charge sheet.
3. The counsel for the appellant would vehemently
contend that the incident was taken place at the spur of
the moment and there is no motive or intention to commit
the murder. The counsel submits that the act of the
appellant will not attract Section 302 of IPC and at the
most, it attracts Section 304, Part-II of IPC. The counsel
also submits that post mortem report is not complete
since histopathology report is awaited. Hence, prayed to
enlarge the appellant on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the
State would vehemently contend that CW1 to CW5 are the
NC: 2024:KHC:17461
eye-witnesses to the incident and knife was seized at the
instance of this appellant and this appellant only inflicted
injury hence, there is a specific overt act allegation against
him. Hence, there is no ground to enlarge the appellant on
bail.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
available on record, it discloses that when the camera was
snatched by this appellant, a scuffle was taken place
between the victim and this appellant along with other
accused persons. Having perused the material, it discloses
specific overt act allegation against this appellant that he
inflicted injury with the knife and PM report is also very
clear that the said injury is caused to the heart, as a
result, he lost his life. The prosecution also mainly relies
upon the evidence of CW1 to CW5 who are the eye-
witnesses to the alleged incident. When such material is
available on record and also recovery is made at the
instance of this appellant and when there is a direct
NC: 2024:KHC:17461
evidence against the appellant, the question of exercising
discretion in favour of this appellant does not arise. The
very contention of the counsel for the appellant that the
act of the appellant will not attract Section 302 of IPC and
at the most it attracts Section 304 Part-II, cannot be
decided at this juncture, since the matter requires trial.
The contention of the counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was not having intention to commit murder also
cannot be accepted at this juncture, since the said issue
also requires trial. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for
the bail.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The criminal appeal is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
